tstorm823:...The Christians you are imagining don't exist. They just don't. You have made up your own version of Christianity to strawman, and it applies to literally not a single person. You are the hateful one.

Homophobic Christians don't exist?

...really?

the clockmaker:or perhaps I am able to look past one factor of a person to the actual person beneath. Even if they are homophobic, one shit stain does not define your entire personality.

Another disagreement. I consider people who'd see homosexuals hanged or stoned reciprocally unworthy of life. So I don't pity them when a lesser evil befalls them.

You mean I don't subscribe to collective guilt, rather believing in personal morality whereas you are happy for secterian violence occurs to people that you know literally two factiods about (pakistani christian) so long as they are the 'wrong' group?

There's nothing collective about holding people accountable for choices each and every one of them have made for themselves.

Each and every one of these people choose to subscribe to and support a dogmatically homophobic ideology. Thus each and every one of them reciprocally deserve to suffer the very worst that ideology would inflict upon gays, atheists, women, and any other innocent group.

Bentusi16:...Indeed, this is the very attitude that you claim Christians have that your espousing. You have literally reduced yourself to the level of your 'enemy'. How can you even begin to claim you have any moral high ground in any discussion if your going to spout things like that?...

Because I merely reciprocated against their transgression. A judge sentencing a kidnapper to imprisonment has the moral high ground, in spite of also robbing the kidnapper of his freedom. Why? Because what's done in reciprocity doesn't "reduce" anyone to anything.

Imperator_DK:There's nothing collective about holding people accountable for choices each and every one of them have made for themselves.

Each and every one of these people choose to subscribe to and support a dogmatically homophobic ideology. Thus each and every one of them reciprocally deserve to suffer the very worst that ideology would inflict upon gays, atheists, women, and any other innocent group.

For a given value of "choose". If everyone around you is a violent homophobe, then it'd be hard to be the person that stands out.

Of course, by not doing so, they are directly supporting those creating the problem, but I can't find myself totally unsympathetic for people wanting to keep their heads down.

Another disagreement. I consider people who'd see homosexuals hanged or stoned reciprocally unworthy of life. So I don't pity them when a lesser evil befalls them.

Who the fuck wants to see homosexuals get stoned or hanged? We're certainly not talking about the people losing their home's, because all we know is "Chrtistain in a certain part of the world. You're saying you don't have pity for people who have literally done nothing that you know to deserve this.

There's nothing collective about holding people accountable for choices each and every one of them have made for themselves.

Each and every one of these people choose to subscribe to and support a dogmatically homophobic ideology. Thus each and every one of them reciprocally deserve to suffer the very worst that ideology would inflict upon gays, atheists, women, and any other innocent group.

A choice you've already presumed they made. And in case you didn't know, Christianity isn't a homophobic ideology.

Imperator_DK:Well, Christians in those places are generally of the conservative variety, so I find it hard to take pity on them for receiving a less cruel fate than that reserved for innocent gays and atheists in their scriptures. I'll start to care once their suffering has surpassed that. The more time Abrahamics spend on taking out their faith on each other, the less time they'll spend taking it out on decent people.

You are really fucked up. Those people probably have nothing to do with people that were around hundreds of years ago. to make such sweeping generalizations of hate is why tragedies like this occur.

Another disagreement. I consider people who'd see homosexuals hanged or stoned reciprocally unworthy of life. So I don't pity them when a lesser evil befalls them.

Woah, woah, woah

How do you know that these people who had their homes torched wanted to see homosexuals slaughtered? Do you honestly believe that is a viewpoint that a majority of Christians hold? Christians make up about 35% of the worlds population - all sorts of people subscribe to Christianity. To suggest they hold any morals in common with one another is ridiculous. Just because something is in the bible doesn't mean all Christians follow it.

Each and every one of these people choose to subscribe to and support a dogmatically homophobic ideology. Thus each and every one of them reciprocally deserve to suffer the very worst that ideology would inflict upon gays, atheists, women, and any other innocent group.

What? Being a Christian is not an admission towards homophobia or violence.

You know, I've read all of your posts in this thread and the thing that is scaring me the most about you is your inability to realise how alike you are acting in comparison with violent fundamental theists. You are using broad strokes to generalise and attempt to justify harming a large mass of people. You are just citing different reasons.

Jux:A good point, I was approaching it from the perspective of an adult that was confident in his lack of belief.

Even from the PoV of a secure adult, being told you're going to hell can be worrying. In of itself it's harmless, but it's a statement with a lot of hatred/distrust behind it. When there's an entire demographic saying that you will (and be extension, should) go to hell, that can be a problem, even if you don't believe hell exists.

Except that the vast majority of Christians do not go around saying people are going to hell. Even the crazy street evangelists I've argued with have said that whilst they believe that, they're not happy about it, which is what motivates them to evangelise.

Saying that it's okay to burn down someone's house, on the assumption that they are the minority of their demographic who do that is not on. Also, at worst its hate speech and whilst that is wrong, it is not nearly equivalent to actual violence.

ClockworkPenguin:Except that the vast majority of Christians do not go around saying people are going to hell. Even the crazy street evangelists I've argued with have said that whilst they believe that, they're not happy about it, which is what motivates them to evangelise.

Certainly, I was speaking in hypotheticals...possibly it might be true in certain limited areas.

ClockworkPenguin:Saying that it's okay to burn down someone's house, on the assumption that they are the minority of their demographic who do that is not on. Also, at worst its hate speech and whilst that is wrong, it is not nearly equivalent to actual violence.

In this thread, Imp condemns people for condemning people for what they believe for what they believe.

To say all Christians are inherently homophobic, you'd have to simultaneously prove that all Christians are against wearing two types of fabrics, planting two different crops in the same field and believing that women should be isolated when they're on their period. All that is written in the most psychotic book in the bible. Take note that virtually ALL Christians do not follow those ridiculous tennants. You say that any Christian who isn't homophobic is a cherry picker, yet you cherry pick that ONE thing to be angry about.

You need to understand that religion is forever evolving. Leviticus specifically laid out rules for back in the day, but bears nothing on today and has even largely ignored and all but taken out of the bible altogether. One can be a non-homophobic Christian just as easily as one who wears multiple types of clothing and hugs his wife during that time of the month.

You are the sick one here. With one broad stroke you have claimed that my family deserves to have their houses burned down, all their belongings stolen, and ultimately be beaten and stoned based on the fact that they would proudly call themselves Christians. My family who follows the true tennants of Christianity: Love thy neighbour and judge not lest ye be judged... They don't hurt anyone, they don't condemn anyone, they would see the world live in peace, and for that you would see them killed with a smile on your face.

I know people like to blame all Muslims for this, but that is false and wrong. I go to college with some muslims and they are not violent in the slightest, but I don't think they are a hardcore sect either. The girls don't cover up, they dress like everyone else (arab girls are very pretty btw), they get along with everyone, even me and I'm of Jewish Heritage.

This tragedy is terrible. No one should be killed for their belief in God.

EDIT: Also not all Christians are homophobic. Many of them just disagree with the gay lifestyle or gay marriage, that is not bigotry in it's self. Seriously what is with the generalizations?

R.Nevermore:...You need to understand that religion is forever evolving. Leviticus specifically laid out rules for back in the day, but bears nothing on today and has even largely ignored and all but taken out of the bible altogether. One can be a non-homophobic Christian just as easily as one who wears multiple types of clothing and hugs his wife during that time of the month....

It hasn't been taken out of the bible though, has it now? It remains on the books, as an official part of Christianity's core scripture.

You complain that I write Gangnam old testament style statements aimed at Christians. Yet you haven't purged the core text you proclaim worship to of such statements? To the extent you don't mean those statements, perhaps I don't mean my statements either. So long as "Christians" continue to talk of others in such way in their scripture, they should be talked of in kind though.

R.Nevermore:...You need to understand that religion is forever evolving. Leviticus specifically laid out rules for back in the day, but bears nothing on today and has even largely ignored and all but taken out of the bible altogether. One can be a non-homophobic Christian just as easily as one who wears multiple types of clothing and hugs his wife during that time of the month....

It hasn't been taken out of the bible though, has it now? It remains on the books, as an official part of Christianity's core scripture.

You complain that I write Gangnam old testament style statements aimed at Christians. Yet you haven't purged the core text you proclaim worship to of such statements? To the extent you don't mean those statements, perhaps I don't mean my statements either. So long as "Christians" continue to talk of others in such way in their scripture, they should be talked of in kind though.

And as to most people words generally carry a meaning...

Then how is it you can claim superiority over this group is you sink down to the level of their lowest extremists? Eye for an eye justice is not practiced in the civilized world, and not is guilt by association.

R.Nevermore:...Then how is it you can claim superiority over this group is you sink down to the level of their lowest extremists? Eye for an eye justice is not practiced in the civilized world, and not is guilt by association.

For the same reason a judge sentencing a kidnapper to imprisonment feel moral superiority to said kidnapper: Reciprocity against the guilty, even if you're doing the same to them they did to the innocent. And I'm not associating you and your family with Leviticus; It's an official part of that whole "bible" thingie you have chosen to associate with, is it not?

...and when you say "civilized world", I'm pretty sure you actually mean "christian world" (or secular nations which are still pervaded by christian norms). Look beyond the limits of your own ethical paradigm, and perhaps you'll see there are other ways to interpret what's right and wrong in the world. Ways which might be more relevant in 2013, than those formulated by cattle sacrificing primitives in the ancient Middle East.

R.Nevermore:...Then how is it you can claim superiority over this group is you sink down to the level of their lowest extremists? Eye for an eye justice is not practiced in the civilized world, and not is guilt by association.

For the same reason a judge sentencing a kidnapper to imprisonment feel moral superiority to said kidnapper: Reciprocity against the guilty, even if you're doing the same to them they did to the innocent. And I'm not associating you and your family with Leviticus; It's an official part of that whole "bible" thingie you have chosen to associate with, is it not?

...and when you say "civilized world", I'm pretty sure you actually mean "christian world" (or secular nations which are still pervaded by christian norms). Look beyond the limits of your own ethical paradigm, and perhaps you'll see there are other ways to interpret what's right and wrong in the world. Ways which might be more relevant in 2013, than those formulated by cattle sacrificing primitives in the ancient Middle East.

Sentencing a kidnapper to imprisonment is not eye for an eye justice. Imprisonment happens to be the go-to response to crimes of such a calibre.

And no, I mean the civilized world. I am agnostic, but you, as an atheist surely don't believe in eye for an eye justice. I am aware that some countries do practice such a system, and I believe it's barbaric. We should focus on rehabilitation, not punishment.

If a prison was bombed, and all the prisoners killed, would you smile and say they got what they deserved? I hope not.... Despite the fact that they actively committed crimes, I'd say they deserved better than a horrible death by vigilantes, terrorists or whoever. The Christians aren't guilty of anything tangible yet you are happy to see their property and belongings destroyed... You think of Christians as sub-human based on the actions of a few. Should I think of all straight white males as subhuman based on the crimes commuted in the past by the few? Or the more recent crimes by fewer still? No group... NONE is blameless throughout history of any wrongdoings.

Yeah, tying any view on religion to the state can be extremely harmful. Virtually any religious perspective, even atheism, can become harmful when it is enforced as the law of the land.

That's beautiful.

I'd like to add.

If it's immoral to do as an individual to do it, would it be suddenly moral if the 'we' as a government do it?

I suppose some things would fall under that. Criminal organizations demanding protection is obviously immoral, while the state collecting taxes under the threat of force is an important part of a functional government. It's more what's functional than immoral really. One could argue that it is inherently moral to argue what one believes to be the truth, but when the government enforces its perception of the truth problems arise. It may be moral for the government to support an ideology, but it certainly isn't functional.

Edit- Also, I can't tell if you're insulting me or complimenting me. It'd be nice if you cleared that up.

Yeah, tying any view on religion to the state can be extremely harmful. Virtually any religious perspective, even atheism, can become harmful when it is enforced as the law of the land.

That's beautiful.

I'd like to add.

If it's immoral to do as an individual to do it, would it be suddenly moral if the 'we' as a government do it?

I suppose some things would fall under that. Criminal organizations demanding protection is obviously immoral, while the state collecting taxes under the threat of force is an important part of a functional government. It's more what's functional than immoral really. One could argue that it is inherently moral to argue what one believes to be the truth, but when the government enforces its perception of the truth problems arise. It may be moral for the government to support an ideology, but it certainly isn't functional.

Edit- Also, I can't tell if you're insulting me or complimenting me. It'd be nice if you cleared that up.

I apologize for my lack of clarity, you singled out the coercion. This just screamed out as a libertarian as an undeniable truth. Adding something to that statement should not diminish the power of that simple concept.

The danger though is, the power to tax, once conceded, has no limits; it contains until it destroys. This gives rise to legal plunder.

Thus I view tax collection as robbery. It could be described as a necessary evil, however that doesn't change it's mal-intent.

If it's immoral to do as an individual to do it, would it be suddenly moral if the 'we' as a government do it?

I suppose some things would fall under that. Criminal organizations demanding protection is obviously immoral, while the state collecting taxes under the threat of force is an important part of a functional government. It's more what's functional than immoral really. One could argue that it is inherently moral to argue what one believes to be the truth, but when the government enforces its perception of the truth problems arise. It may be moral for the government to support an ideology, but it certainly isn't functional.

Edit- Also, I can't tell if you're insulting me or complimenting me. It'd be nice if you cleared that up.

I apologize for my lack of clarity, you singled out the coercion. This just screamed out as a libertarian as an undeniable truth. Adding something to that statement should not diminish the power of that simple concept.

The danger though is, the power to tax, once conceded, has no limits; it contains until it destroys. This gives rise to legal plunder.

Thus I view tax collection as robbery. It could be described as a necessary evil, however that doesn't change it's mal-intent.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. And I suppose I can agree that taxation is a necessary evil, as long as we're putting a very heavy emphasis on necessary. That's essentially how I view most of my economic views.

Really, anyone who is homophobic and calls themselves a Christian, is not a Christian.

Ah, No True Scotsman... It's been far too long, my old friend!

Technically though it is true; Jesus Christ out and said that he was there to overwrite the old laws, and breached of peace, loving thy neighbour and *gasp* showed approval of a vaguely homosexual couple.

But going by Christ's teachings alone, he wouldn't consider homophobes as being his followers no matter how much lip service they paid.

Or to quote a good image caption I once saw on the matter: "Love one another just as I loved you" "BUt what about the homosexuals?" "DID I FUCKING STUTTER?"

EDIT: Before anyone brings this up: Yes John did equate homosexuality with wickedness, however he was A) Sexually repressed and believed that all sexual activity was sinful, even hetrosexual sex for procreation and B) He specifically believed that homosexual sex was caused by a wicked lifestyle, so it's safe to ignore his opinion since he's, you know, not the son of God and was established to have made mistakes throughout the bible.

As for Leviticus, it's a set of laws the people of the time lived by that was dressed up in religious drappings to get people to listen to them. As said about Jesus showing up is said to have null and voided the laws before him, and as for taking it out of the Bible...that would not end well. It's fundementally no different than those right-wing nutjobs seeking to "retranslate" the Bible to get rid of the "liberal" bias. The point is nobody worth listening to is preaching to go back to Leviticus, anyone who does you can simply point out the hypocracies in their own stances and throw relevant Bible Quotes back at them, and most Christians are smart enough to realise it's not the literal word of God.

Really, anyone who is homophobic and calls themselves a Christian, is not a Christian.

Ah, No True Scotsman... It's been far too long, my old friend!

Technically though it is true; Jesus Christ out and said that he was there to overwrite the old laws, and breached of peace, loving thy neighbour and *gasp* showed approval of a vaguely homosexual couple.

But going by Christ's teachings alone, he wouldn't consider homophobes as being his followers no matter how much lip service they paid.

Or to quote a good image caption I once saw on the matter: "Love one another just as I loved you" "BUt what about the homosexuals?" "DID I FUCKING STUTTER?"

EDIT: Before anyone brings this up: Yes John did equate homosexuality with wickedness, however he was A) Sexually repressed and believed that all sexual activity was sinful, even hetrosexual sex for procreation and B) He specifically believed that homosexual sex was caused by a wicked lifestyle, so it's safe to ignore his opinion since he's, you know, not the son of God and was established to have made mistakes throughout the bible.

As for Leviticus, it's a set of laws the people of the time lived by that was dressed up in religious drappings to get people to listen to them. As said about Jesus showing up is said to have null and voided the laws before him, and as for taking it out of the Bible...that would not end well. It's fundementally no different than those right-wing nutjobs seeking to "retranslate" the Bible to get rid of the "liberal" bias. The point is nobody worth listening to is preaching to go back to Leviticus, anyone who does you can simply point out the hypocracies in their own stances and throw relevant Bible Quotes back at them, and most Christians are smart enough to realise it's not the literal word of God.

The only source of these alleged claims contains several chapters dedicated to the rantings of a mysogynist who claimed to be speaking under God's authority. Do you deny the teachings of Paul? Do most Christians? They ought to, if what you say is true, since Paul was so at odds with what Jesus espoused.

Really, anyone who is homophobic and calls themselves a Christian, is not a Christian.

Ah, No True Scotsman... It's been far too long, my old friend!

Technically though it is true; Jesus Christ out and said that he was there to overwrite the old laws, and breached of peace, loving thy neighbour and *gasp* showed approval of a vaguely homosexual couple.

But going by Christ's teachings alone, he wouldn't consider homophobes as being his followers no matter how much lip service they paid.

Or to quote a good image caption I once saw on the matter: "Love one another just as I loved you" "BUt what about the homosexuals?" "DID I FUCKING STUTTER?"

EDIT: Before anyone brings this up: Yes John did equate homosexuality with wickedness, however he was A) Sexually repressed and believed that all sexual activity was sinful, even hetrosexual sex for procreation and B) He specifically believed that homosexual sex was caused by a wicked lifestyle, so it's safe to ignore his opinion since he's, you know, not the son of God and was established to have made mistakes throughout the bible.

As for Leviticus, it's a set of laws the people of the time lived by that was dressed up in religious drappings to get people to listen to them. As said about Jesus showing up is said to have null and voided the laws before him, and as for taking it out of the Bible...that would not end well. It's fundementally no different than those right-wing nutjobs seeking to "retranslate" the Bible to get rid of the "liberal" bias. The point is nobody worth listening to is preaching to go back to Leviticus, anyone who does you can simply point out the hypocracies in their own stances and throw relevant Bible Quotes back at them, and most Christians are smart enough to realise it's not the literal word of God.

"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Huh. This seems to be at odds with the idea that Jesus came to abolish the old law. And if homosexuality was bad before, what makes it okay now? This seems to be cherry-picking to me. If someone calls themselves the follower of someone and adheres more or less to the only text in existence that could be construed of proof of that person's existence, I'm going to take them at their word. And I've met enough fundamentalists to know that "most Christians" is not enough.